An Allegan County judge declared unconstitutional the City of Saugatuck’s sign rules Wednesday, Sept. 3, calling the limits blatant censorship while dismissing a citation against a controversial piece of art.

“You can’t do that,” District Court Judge Joseph Skocelas said about the city’s rule that allows no more than three opinion signs on private property. “It’s their property. They can say what they want.”

Referring to the city’s sign ordinance, Skocelas said, “If that’s not total censorship, I don’t know what is.”

The city will review the judge’s ruling and decide if it wants to appeal, said city attorney Crystal L. Morgan, of Bloom Sluggett Morgan of Grand Rapids, immediately after the ruling.

Defendant John Porzondek was cited on July 9 by the city for violating the sign ordinance by installing a 29-by-12 foot creation made from the aluminum framing of what once had been a second-story awning at his home at 790 Lake St. The city had ordered the awning removed in 2009 because it violated Historic District Commission rules. Porzondek and the city continued legal battles until the awning was taken down in 2013.

Porzondek, who acted as his own attorney, said Wednesday’s case was not about the awning but about freedom of expression.

The city argued the citation was not about art or the anti-city messages it contains, but about the three-sign limit in the ordinance.

“It’s very common to restrict the number of signs on property,” Morgan said.

Porzondek and James Bryan Serman, who also lives at the address, used a bush as the head of the butterfly design and decorated the awning framing as its wings with signs saying, “Fix the fraud,” “Now return our roof awning umbrella,” “Demand public excellence” and “WTF!!”

At the time of the citation, the project, called Misfit Art Butterfly, was made up of 14 signs. The city’s ordinance allowed three.

“They are not signs. They are images. They are forms. ... They are broader than what the messages say,” Porzondek told the judge.

“It’s a sculpture. My sculpture. Our sculpture,” said Serman during testimony, adding that he envisioned the art as the awning frame was being taken down.

“In the process, in my mind’s eye, I saw the frames becoming wings,” he said. “It was like a cocoon on the upstairs deck. We brought it down and made it a butterfly.”

Serman creates what he calls “misfit” art by using discarded or broken objects. He has several pieces around the Lake Street property.

Porzondek asked Michael Clark, city planning director, to define art.

“That’s a great question,” said Clark while on the witness stand. “There is no good answer for that.”

Page 2 of 2 - The judge did not define art either, saying the issue is about First Amendment rights to free speech that is protected in federal law. Higher courts have repeatedly ruled against limits on the number of signs on a person’s property.

“If this is art, it is truly misfit art,” Skocelas said about the sculpture, but the owners on private property have the right to express themselves and use as many signs as they want.

“The city has no right to tell people how many signs residents put out,” Skocelas said.